gdp=consumer spending+investments+government spending+(exports-imports)
What about this formula is peculiar? This formula is how we judge our economic success yet it has a strange quality: Aside from exports, it measures spending, not production. Any money spent is inherently positive for the sacred GDP. So if the consumer or the government just borrows like crazy and spends the money on doughnuts, that raises GDP. Not to disparage doughnuts; they are wonderful. And certainly the money spent on them will percolate down through the doughnut industry for the betterment of all. But this does raise a point: Is some spending better than others? Is money saved and spent better than money borrowed and spent? Is money spent on small start up companies better than money spent on swampland in Florida? Is the money spent raising a building the same as money spent razing one?
Are all money and all spending created equal?
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Monday, May 9, 2011
Taking the Black
The willingness of the government to support financially institutions it feels are "too big to fail" is said to create a "moral hazard;" by indirectly underwriting the errors of these corporations the government may be supporting those very errors. This might encourage people in those corporations to behave recklessly with the knowledge that the government will support them regardless of the outcome. Thus the government might be subsidizing the corporation's errors and indirectly supporting irresponsible behavior.
It is interesting to hear the judgmental "moral" used as it is a rare bird indeed in this culture. But its exclusiveness is more interesting. So many people in this country have "taken the black" and gone into subsidized life. Social security, disability, welfare have all become a secular retreat, like monasteries, away from the work-a-day troubles of the world. Certainly these supports are well intentioned and probably usually well deserved but they are certainly well abused too.
Are they a social moral hazard?
It is interesting to hear the judgmental "moral" used as it is a rare bird indeed in this culture. But its exclusiveness is more interesting. So many people in this country have "taken the black" and gone into subsidized life. Social security, disability, welfare have all become a secular retreat, like monasteries, away from the work-a-day troubles of the world. Certainly these supports are well intentioned and probably usually well deserved but they are certainly well abused too.
Are they a social moral hazard?
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Illusion Busting
An interesting computer that takes future principal and earnings estimates and compares them to all historical time sets. So one can state a amount of principal and compare what all similar principals have done in every comparable time in history. You can change one component at a time and see how it works. (Sorry I couldn't link it.)
http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/randomness/retirement_odds.htm
http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/randomness/retirement_odds.htm
Thursday, May 5, 2011
The Frontiers of Violence
So...the United States flies military personnel from an airfield in a foreign nation that we have been fighting in for years without a declaration of war, across an international border without permission, lands on foreign soil and kills several unarmed people--two of the killed are citizens of the country and one is not--and leaves, returning back across the border to the foreign country they originally came from.
And in The United States there is a debate over the morality of how the information was obtained to target this raid?
The main argument seems to be torture doesn't work, it doesn't give good information. (A terrible argument--it must work on some people. And the Nazis refined it; they tortured the suspect's family. That worked.) But Panetta and Tenet and Rumsfeld say it does work. If it works, does that make it O.K.? Another technique that worked for the Third Reich was killing all the family members of anyone involved in partisan activities. Would that be O.K.?
It is reminiscent of the old ecclesiastical argument: If committing a venial sin would save all the souls in hell, would it be right to do?
We are exploring serious boundaries here. The terrorists are not really at war. War has objectives. War has people you can negotiate with. War has combatants on both sides. The terrorists have not declared war, they have issued a declaration of hate. There is no obvious circumstance under which they would stop. Their targets are specifically people who are not combatants and who do not think of themselves as involved in any conflict. These people cannot surrender nor can they sue for peace. The terrorists are always looking for more ways to do damage; they never look for a solution. There is no solution: "From hell's heart I stab at thee."
What has emerged here is a self contained engine of destruction. It is not a predator, not a partisan, not a revolutionary. It is closest to a rogue animal that resembles his fellows but has lost its purpose and hunts and kills without hunger or competition. And he has stimulated a terrible reaction, a terrible hunter. This new hunter recognises no national borders, no mitigating circumstance and experiences no remorse. Of all the industry the United States has offloaded, none will influence the culture the way this new hunter will, a calculating hard-wired killer acting as the agent for a culture that sits at home and dissects interrogation techniques.
And in The United States there is a debate over the morality of how the information was obtained to target this raid?
The main argument seems to be torture doesn't work, it doesn't give good information. (A terrible argument--it must work on some people. And the Nazis refined it; they tortured the suspect's family. That worked.) But Panetta and Tenet and Rumsfeld say it does work. If it works, does that make it O.K.? Another technique that worked for the Third Reich was killing all the family members of anyone involved in partisan activities. Would that be O.K.?
It is reminiscent of the old ecclesiastical argument: If committing a venial sin would save all the souls in hell, would it be right to do?
We are exploring serious boundaries here. The terrorists are not really at war. War has objectives. War has people you can negotiate with. War has combatants on both sides. The terrorists have not declared war, they have issued a declaration of hate. There is no obvious circumstance under which they would stop. Their targets are specifically people who are not combatants and who do not think of themselves as involved in any conflict. These people cannot surrender nor can they sue for peace. The terrorists are always looking for more ways to do damage; they never look for a solution. There is no solution: "From hell's heart I stab at thee."
What has emerged here is a self contained engine of destruction. It is not a predator, not a partisan, not a revolutionary. It is closest to a rogue animal that resembles his fellows but has lost its purpose and hunts and kills without hunger or competition. And he has stimulated a terrible reaction, a terrible hunter. This new hunter recognises no national borders, no mitigating circumstance and experiences no remorse. Of all the industry the United States has offloaded, none will influence the culture the way this new hunter will, a calculating hard-wired killer acting as the agent for a culture that sits at home and dissects interrogation techniques.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Identifying the Enemy
The Politico reported today that intelligence officials met with Congress members at a classified meeting yesterday to discuss the bin Laden attack where it was revealed that bin Laden had 500 dollars in Euros and two phone numbers sewn in his clothing. The analysis concludes he expected to have warning of any attack with enough time to escape with a reasonable escape route. Not all the invited members heard this because they left early.
The focus of the article was on the suspicion of his assumed warning and what this implies about Pakistan. It seems to be believed that Pakistan has little concern about secrets or confidential information--perhaps as little as Congress. How could the information from a "classified meeting" be so available to the press and why would they print it?
It seems as if bin Laden was a burnt out threat--much like the dissipated "Jackal" when he was caught; the real significance is the information. It would be hoped that every available individual would be combing through the information retrieved and sending flint-eyed men out to discuss international terrorism intensely with the suspects. Any information that helps these sadistic killers make a good decision should be closely guarded. Having the congress reveal any information--and have the press print it--would be treason in any other place or time. But what can one expect from a group who were not interested enough to hear the whole story?
Then again, maybe there is no information and the announcement that there is a lot is nothing but a ruse to send the terrorists into early hidden retirement.
The focus of the article was on the suspicion of his assumed warning and what this implies about Pakistan. It seems to be believed that Pakistan has little concern about secrets or confidential information--perhaps as little as Congress. How could the information from a "classified meeting" be so available to the press and why would they print it?
It seems as if bin Laden was a burnt out threat--much like the dissipated "Jackal" when he was caught; the real significance is the information. It would be hoped that every available individual would be combing through the information retrieved and sending flint-eyed men out to discuss international terrorism intensely with the suspects. Any information that helps these sadistic killers make a good decision should be closely guarded. Having the congress reveal any information--and have the press print it--would be treason in any other place or time. But what can one expect from a group who were not interested enough to hear the whole story?
Then again, maybe there is no information and the announcement that there is a lot is nothing but a ruse to send the terrorists into early hidden retirement.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
bin Laden and El-Qaida
Obama's decision on how to kill bin Laden was a brave one. He has been accused of fecklessness, indecision and diffidence--his friends say he "leads from behind"--so any public failure in this attack on the house in Pakistan would have significant negative consequences. The symbolic position was worse for Obama. He has been compared to Carter frequently and Carter had a significant bad moment during his presidency that served to characterize his term, although the events were essentially beyond his control. In desperation he sent special forces into Iran to rescue the people taken hostage from the embassy there. They attacked by helicopter and it was more than a disaster, it was a fiasco and it tarred Carter forever. One can just imagine Obama's advisors urging him to attack with bombs or drones; at least a failure would be less obvious, perhaps even overlooked. A failure with helicopters and special troops would remind everyone of Carter.
But Obama braved it out. He wanted proof of who was there and wanted proof he was dead when we left. He took a great risk, was successful and deserves credit for it.
Now what?
When al-Qaida emerged on the American radar Clinton thought they should be fought like criminals. The problem with that approach is there is no way of coordinating anticriminal activities across borders. The Americans have had no success with Mexico with real drug criminals. Indeed, Pakistan proves that cooperation for an antiterrorist purpose is impossible; the government sympathizes with the enemy. Moreover, an attack on bin Laden would have been impossible had the Americans not taken a beachhead in Afganistan. There was another problem for Clinton; any successful attack on terrorists as criminals demands infiltration and Clinton was cool on using the type of person necessary for that assignment.
George Will wrote recently: "Jim Lacey of the Marine Corps War College notes that Gen. David Petraeus has said there are perhaps about 100 al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan. 'Did anyone,' Lacey asks, 'do the math?' There are, he says, more than 140,000 coalition soldiers in Afghanistan, or 1,400 for every al-Qaida fighter. It costs about $1 million a year to deploy and support every soldier — or up to $140 billion, or close to $1.5 billion a year, for each al-Qaida fighter.
'In what universe do we find strategists to whom this makes sense?'"
Now that bin Laden is dead, perhaps we can revisit our overall approach to these terrible people.
But Obama braved it out. He wanted proof of who was there and wanted proof he was dead when we left. He took a great risk, was successful and deserves credit for it.
Now what?
When al-Qaida emerged on the American radar Clinton thought they should be fought like criminals. The problem with that approach is there is no way of coordinating anticriminal activities across borders. The Americans have had no success with Mexico with real drug criminals. Indeed, Pakistan proves that cooperation for an antiterrorist purpose is impossible; the government sympathizes with the enemy. Moreover, an attack on bin Laden would have been impossible had the Americans not taken a beachhead in Afganistan. There was another problem for Clinton; any successful attack on terrorists as criminals demands infiltration and Clinton was cool on using the type of person necessary for that assignment.
George Will wrote recently: "Jim Lacey of the Marine Corps War College notes that Gen. David Petraeus has said there are perhaps about 100 al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan. 'Did anyone,' Lacey asks, 'do the math?' There are, he says, more than 140,000 coalition soldiers in Afghanistan, or 1,400 for every al-Qaida fighter. It costs about $1 million a year to deploy and support every soldier — or up to $140 billion, or close to $1.5 billion a year, for each al-Qaida fighter.
'In what universe do we find strategists to whom this makes sense?'"
Now that bin Laden is dead, perhaps we can revisit our overall approach to these terrible people.
Monday, May 2, 2011
bin Laden
bin Laden is dead but he has changed the world. Discussions will work around the edges--Was it the CIA's fault originally for supporting him against the Russians? Is he really dead? What is the role of Pakistan in all this? Should he have been buried? Was he a real military leader or was he an armed dilettante?--but his real contribution is to the world of violence and this contribution will go long remembered.
Savagery against the innocent has always been the trademark of the warlord or the criminal. Kidnapping, symbolic murder, extortion has always used leverage against the innocent to make the dominant but reflective and socially concerned weak. But their motives have always been booty; money and women. It has been until now a tool exclusive to the criminal (drug cartels), the stone aged warrior (Apache), the dark ages horseman (Attila).
There will always be examples of this behavior--The Lionheart at Acre, Jackson and the Creeks--but these terrible exceptions are remembered as exactly that: Exceptions. There is only one man in modern times who has generated violence pointedly at innocents under a banner of righteousness as a matter of policy: Hitler. He has now been joined by bin Laden who has refined this barbarism and put it in the hands of the individual.
bin Laden has downsized and made personal the atavistic savagery that peaks out now and then in our history and made it modern. For him there is a new circle in hell.
Savagery against the innocent has always been the trademark of the warlord or the criminal. Kidnapping, symbolic murder, extortion has always used leverage against the innocent to make the dominant but reflective and socially concerned weak. But their motives have always been booty; money and women. It has been until now a tool exclusive to the criminal (drug cartels), the stone aged warrior (Apache), the dark ages horseman (Attila).
There will always be examples of this behavior--The Lionheart at Acre, Jackson and the Creeks--but these terrible exceptions are remembered as exactly that: Exceptions. There is only one man in modern times who has generated violence pointedly at innocents under a banner of righteousness as a matter of policy: Hitler. He has now been joined by bin Laden who has refined this barbarism and put it in the hands of the individual.
bin Laden has downsized and made personal the atavistic savagery that peaks out now and then in our history and made it modern. For him there is a new circle in hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)